Cultivating Pleasure

Two articles on the same page of a leading newspaper caught my eye because of their interesting and contrasting themes. Manu Joseph’s article was sarcastic, lambasting all liberals as mediocre except for a handful he graciously and grudgingly compliments for possessing talents adequate to put forth their views forcibly. Gurcharan Das on the other hand pleads for cultivating pleasure by blending Yang(doing energy) with Yin(the joy of being alive and of doing things for the sake of pleasure and happiness)

Manu Joseph’s hard hitting attack on the liberals- he doesn’t put his finger only on the current crop of liberals, but derogatorily sweeps away almost all liberals who, according to him are in the “organized compassion industry, creating insubstantial news with a moral compass”. The Moral compass, he says, makes them the darling of the elites who share with these liberals pseudo empathy for the poor and the marginalized groups of society. While there is some truth in his criticism of pretentious liberals, that  includes young idealists from affluent families who take to social work in order to be a part of the elites’ league, Manu betrays a high degree of intolerance towards the Left liberals  and Left leaning writers and activists who champion the cause of the victims of  ‘social frailties.’

In an interview after the release of his third novel Ms. Laila, Armed and Dangerous, Manu Joseph had made  a disturbing statement that  “Evil is an equal opportunity society. Good is actually a society where there’s nepotism, especially in the JNU crowd, in the Left liberal set up.” Who disputes(this includes the communists and the Left leaning activists and journalists)the fact that “ equal opportunity society” is an impractical idea, and this dream wish remains  incarcerated within those three words with zero possibility of becoming a reality. But for Manu, such a society is not only impractical, it is also evil in contrast to the society that admits nepotism, patronage and favouritism –which Manu designates as ‘good’. One cannot help reacting, that this is his own personal ideological bias shorn of ‘empathy’, which he mockingly credits the liberals as being suffused with. Can any society be fair when it gives unfair benefits to some and denies the same to a large majority who are not within the compass of those in power? Can there be a just society where to talk about equal opportunity is being pro evil and anti-good?  In the same interview, Manu hits out at communists whose professed attempt to save the world moves people and that such extreme altruism raises a question mark on their mental health. Such altruism according to Manu appears as seemingly good without anyone realizing that the person rots inside and is destroyed by his own idealism. “Extreme uprightness in a person”, says Manu Joseph, “is a psychiatric condition.”

For him truthful presentation of social frailties in literature and journalism destroys art as it amounts to celebration of weakness. Parallel cinema, novels that deal with the marginalized and deprived society, according to him inhibit artistic and aesthetic excellence. Manu seems to prefer creative falsehood that provides the escape route from the burdens of life. Obviously he is not aware of George Steiner’s words,  “language is the main instrument of man’s refusal to accept the world as it is.” If portrayal of reality is seen as negative and false, we shall remain guilty of motivated writing not about things which are, but about things which might be and which ought to be. It is disturbing that in today’s world overtaken by consumerism, materialism, money and selfcentreness, the alternative concepts of enoughism, essentialism, minimalism, altruism are seen as false, un-pragmatic, unrealistic and unachievable moral empathy. I wonder if Manu’s pragmatic ‘good’ society is a return to oligarchy where power is invested with a few or with a small dominant class. Does this confer happiness on all or it does not matter if a large majority is outside this compass of happiness? Does this mean the claims of empathy made by the liberals are false? Can one enjoy undiluted pleasure if all those around are unhappy and miserable? We have a Tamil saying that we know nothing except doing good to others.

Art and aesthetics have as much place in our lives as social frailties around us are a reality. Highlighting one at the expense of the other is being lopsided. Decrying presentation of unpleasant reality is being fanciful to believe all is well and beautiful. There is no doubt that in recent times writers and artists have been applauded only if they made their audience grind their nose in dirt and filth. Such an effort does not and cannot remove the squalor unless it is accompanied by a positive attempt to cleanse it. It is one thing to sensitize people to the ugliness and squalidness around them, but to remain forever in that state of wretchedness actually has a reverse effect of turning people insensitive and apathetic to it. In the same way to label liberals as being pretentiously empathetic and falsely taking umbrage within a moral compass is similar to calling critics of establishment as anti national. There has to be a balance and this is what Gurcharan Das speaks of as cultivating pleasure. He seeks the union of Yin and Yang, which in simple terms is to realize one’s energy to do that which gives pleasure and happiness. This was what Sartre said when he spoke of finding meaning for one’s existence by taking responsibility for one’s actions, factoring in its positive impact on fellow beings. Manu’s article is a serendipitous affirmation of Gurcharan Das’ title of his interpretation of the Mahabharata “It is Difficult to be Good” today as it was during the days of the great Indian epic. There isa wise old saying in Tamil, “we know nothing more than understanding and enjoying others’ happiness.”

Gurcharan Das’ positive attitude to life through cultivating pleasure is in line with Martha Nussbaum’s enjoinment to cultivate humanity. No one can be happy in isolation. That will make prison houses the most sought after. No one can be happy if others around are unhappy. No one can be happy if it is not noticed by others; still worse if others are in misery. Happiness for oneself is dry happiness- what Victor Hugo says, is like dry bread which we eat, but do not dine. Happiness for self and others is fulfilling and wholesome. Cultivating happiness is a by- product of cultivating humanity. In doing things we energize ourselves; in doing things for the pleasure and wellness of fellow humanity is the simple recipe for cultivating happiness. “ Happiness does not lie in happiness , but in the achievement of it” (Fyodor Dostoevsky)